Proposition 2 fails to fix California’s broken school voucher program.

California’s program for funding school construction is broken, favoring local districts that already have access to money over those that don’t.

The $10 billion state bond proposal up for a vote on Nov. 5 would perpetuate inequality and leave the state vulnerable to litigation. Voters should reject Proposition 2.

The measure would authorize the state to borrow money to fund $8.5 billion for local school construction and $1.5 billion for community colleges.

Thanks to similar measures passed earlier by California voters, the state already has $39 billion in school bonds outstanding. State debt payments on that amount totaled $2.9 billion last fiscal year.

The $10 billion in Proposition 2 would increase bond payments by about $500 million annually for 35 years. If the money were spent wisely, Proposition 2 would be worth considering, but it isn’t.

The state plays a small role in funding school construction. About 85 percent of the money comes from local bond measures that voters approve for the school districts in which they live, according to figures from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office and calculations from the Center for Cities and Schools at the University of California, Berkeley.

The debt on these bonds is repaid through local property tax assessments. Districts with higher property values ​​(places where home values ​​are higher or where there are strong commercial cores) can generally provide more bond funds for school construction.

The state program is supposed to fill that need by first helping so-called low-income districts where the total property tax rate per student is lower. Examples include San Lorenzo, Castro Valley, Antioch, Oakley and Pittsburg unified school districts.

Instead, the state does exactly the opposite: it distributes money on a first-come, first-serve basis, as matching funds covering half the cost of new construction and 60% of renovation projects.

That benefits districts that already have money for construction and hurts financially struggling districts, the state auditor found in a 2022 report. As a result, districts in California’s wealthiest communities received $4,000 to $5,000 more in state funding per student to modernize their facilities than districts in less affluent communities, according to a study by the UC Berkeley center.

While the state attempts to provide additional operating funds for schools with poor children, there is no similar effort to match financial allocations for school construction. In fact, the state does exactly the opposite, providing aid first to districts that need it least. That is not only bad policy, it is also legally suspect.